• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

FullRes IR vs. Reverb

steadystate

Fractal Fanatic
Without looking at the reveal or any other posts, I say sample B is the full res. Sample B sounds more like a distant mic'd amp. Sample A sounds more like a standard IR running into a Reverb block. It's hard to put into words, but there is somehow a better integration between the direct and ambient portions of the tone in Sample B. And perhaps the distant capture of the direct portion of the speaker in B plays a role as well.

They both sound great, and very similar. But B definitely sounds more like a recording of a distant miced amp to me. If I'm wrong, I'll add this instance to the colossal pile.
 

steadystate

Fractal Fanatic
I'm beginning to think that the reason I've never liked far field IRs is that they sound unnatural to me when not presented in an ambient space. When a distant miced speaker is captured in a genuine ambient environment, the room reflections from that speaker somehow make the direct portion make more sense to my brain. This doesn't seem to happen when I use a Reverb block on a far field IR. Not sure why.
 

Jason Scott

Fractal Fanatic
My impression was exactly the opposite. I've read the entire thread now, and wish I had a Mark II.
To each their own, of course. I'd like to own an MKII, though given I own an MKI, if I found I couldn't reproduce the sound of a particular FullRes IR with reverb to my satisfaction, I can still use FullRes IR's. Granted, it's a lot more convenient to be able to store them on the device itself, but dragging and dropping them onto a Cab block as needed isn't a deal-breaker for me, but that's me. The other thing I like about reverb is the fact that it's separate from the IR and affords the user much more control over the effect. That said, I definitely think FullRes IR's are an awesome innovation.
 
Last edited:
Idea for MK1 users: Split the signal after the amp block, and send the split signal into your DAW to be processed by mixIR2, where you can vary the length of an IR up to its full length. See Pete Thorn's video:

If you can monitor the mixIR2 signal with low enough latency, you should be able to change presets in the AXE FX 3 MK1 while keeping a constant Fullres IR mixed into the sound.
 
Last edited:

Piing

Fractal Fanatic
Idea for MK1 users: Split the signal after the amp block, and send the split signal into your DAW to be processed by mixIR2, where you can vary the length of an IR up to its full length. See Pete Thorn's video:

If you can monitor the mixIR2 signal with low enough latency, you should be able to change presets in the AXE FX 3 MK1 while keeping a constant Fullres IR mixed into the sound.


Can the FullRes IRs shared by York Audio and VallhalIR be loaded at mixIR2?
 

Brandon7s

New Member

Jason Scott

Fractal Fanatic
I'm a newbie and recently learned that many plugins already do convolution IRs: https://integraudio.com/10-best-con...se_Rather_Convolution_Over_Algorithmic_Reverb

However, I'm not sure how long those IRs are. Does anyone know how the FAS Fullres IRs compare with convolution IR plugins?
FullRes IR's have a response time of up to 1.37 seconds. By comparison, I have Altiverb, and response times vary from around .2 seconds for really small spaces, all the way up to 15.9 seconds for stadiums.
 
FullRes IR's have a response time of up to 1.37 seconds. By comparison, I have Altiverb, and response times vary from around .2 seconds for really small spaces, all the way up to 15.9 seconds for stadiums.
Interesting. It looks like the Altiverb 7 convolution plugin has been on the market for over 10 years. From a listener's point of view, does Fractal's Fullres IR tech improve upon the existing convolution reverb tech?

Also interesting - convolution IRs may not always be the best for AITR, since Altiverb's convolution IR lost to the Bricasti M7's algorithmic reverb in this reverb shootout:
 

Jason Scott

Fractal Fanatic
Interesting. It looks like the Altiverb 7 convolution plugin has been on the market for over 10 years. From a listener's point of view, does Fractal's Fullres IR tech improve upon the existing convolution reverb tech?
The advantage of FullRes IR's is that they can be used without incurring latency.

Also interesting - convolution IRs may not always be the best for AITR, since Altiverb's convolution IR lost to the Bricasti M7's algorithmic reverb in this reverb shootout:

What does Altiverb losing to Bricasti in this particular blind test have to do with convolution not always being best for AITR? One reason many people would not opt to use a plugin like Altiverb for AITR while practicing with headphones is that it introduces latency. That said, one advantage of a plugin like Altiverb is that you have a lot more control over the effect.
 
Last edited:
The advantage of FullRes IR's is that they can be used without incurring latency.
Generally a good point, although in my case, I use the Axe Fx 3's SPDIF out to another interface that has sufficiently low latency.

What does Altiverb losing to Bricasti in this particular blind test have to do with convolution not always being best for AITR?
My point was that spacial realism, or at least a pleasing reverb, can be achieved algorithmically as well. I suspect this conclusion translates to a great AITR sound, but I admit that I'm still learning. A good test may be to run a blind shootout between a Fullres IR vs Bricasti M7 algo reverb.

One reason many people would not opt to use a plugin like Altiverb for AITR while practicing with headphones is that it introduces latency.
I concede your implied point about convenience. It certainly is nice to have the entire sound self-contained within the Axe Fx 3.

That said, one advantage of a plugin like Altiverb is that you have a lot more control over the effect.
Interesting. I have to learn more about this plugin! It's quite pricey though.
 

Jason Scott

Fractal Fanatic
Generally a good point, although in my case, I use the Axe Fx 3's SPDIF out to another interface that has sufficiently low latency.
If latency is low enough, practicing may not be an issue, though latency for different plugins can vary. In my case, the latency when using Altiverb is low enough that it doesn't bother me.

My point was that spacial realism, or at least a pleasing reverb, can be achieved algorithmically as well. I suspect this conclusion translates to a great AITR sound
A good algorithmic reverb can sound extremely realistic(eg. Bricasti M7), but not everyone can afford an M7, so when accuracy is a prime consideration, convolution reverb is often the weapon of choice for many hobbyists. The difference between algorithmic and convolution reverb is that the former generates imaginary spaces using a network of delays, whereas convolution reverb uses impulse responses sampled from real environments to accurately recreate an acoustic environment's physical properties. The drawback is that the latter is computationally expensive.
 
Last edited:
The difference between algorithmic and convolution reverb is that the former generates imaginary spaces using a network of delays, whereas convolution reverb uses impulse responses sampled from real environments to accurately recreate an acoustic environment's physical properties. The drawback is that the latter is computationally expensive.
Thanks for that helpful breakdown. Very useful.
 
I’ve been running the AITR reverb settings in this thread on my FM3. They are indispensable when using headphones. Was wondering how you got the block to sound like that? Admittedly, I never know how to use the settings in the verb block very well, just curious what your approach was in approximating FullRes IRs.
 
Top Bottom